Tosfos explains that tovas hanaah exeeds the benefit of axe usage for chopping. How does Rashi learn as Rashi does not explain that to be the case and we can assume he doesn't learn that way? What do the last three words in Rashi mean - yazas haniyasa lechulin? If Rashi means the Masheel removes the axe from its hekdesh status and now it can be used for any value of hanaah by anyone - even to a further borrower, Rashi should omit saying "venischayiv dmei tovas hanaa lehekdesh" as that point would be irrelevant and the explanation is complete without those words. If Rashi means those words to yes be significant then the only aspect of the axe that left hekdesh status is that of the loaner's tovas hanaah value in being a loaner, but a borrower's benefit of chopping with the axe hasn't left hekdesh and the borrower should be moel!?
Daniel Gray, Toronto Canada
Sholom Rav,
The commentary in the Gemara 've'Shinantam', citing Tosfos in the name of the Ri and the Ritva quoting others, explains that the borrower may only use the ax for the duration of the loan, at which point it returns to its former state. He adds 'and that is also implied by Rashi'. He is probably referring to the very words that you are asking from. Baruch she'kivanta!
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
Hi. Tks. However my question still remains even when we say
that the borrower may only use the ax for the duration of the loan
Because the value of hanaah of the use of the axe (say $50) exceeds the value of hanaah to the lender to be held in favor by the borrower (say $20) and therefore only $20 became chulin and how can rashi say the whole $50 became chulin by virtue of the lender using hekdesh by mistake and becoming liable for $20 the value of tovas hanaah!?
Sholom Rav,
As we learned in the Gemara, if the Gizbor builds a beam of Hekdesh into his roof and sits underneath it to the value of a P'rutah, it goes out to Chulin completely, irrespective of the value of the beam.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler
My initial email described how it's meduyak in Rashi to not say Rashi is saying what you're saying he is.
1) (a) First, I will attempt to explain Rashi DH v'Chavero. Rashi writes that since the Mash'il inadvertently lent it out and thereby became liable to Hekdesh for the value of the Tovas Hana'ah, the Hana'ah of the axe went out to Chulin. Rashi is telling us that the fact that there is a Chiyuv of Me'ilah causes the axe to become Chulin. This is why it is very significant that Rashi writes "v'Nischayev Demei Tovas Hana'ah l'Hekdesh" -- because the result of the latter fact is "Yatzas Haniyasah l'Chulin."
(b) This concept is illustrated well by the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (28a) where Rav says that if, on Rosh Hashanah, somebody blows the Shofar using the horn of an animal which has been dedicated to be offered as a Korban Olah, b'Di'eved he thereby fulfills the Mitzvah of Shofar. However, if he blew with the horn of a Korban Shelamim animal, he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah even b'Di'eved. The difference is that Me'ilah applies for an Olah, while Me'ilah does not apply for Shelamim (because Shelamim are a lighter level of Kodshim). Therefore, when he blows the horn of the Olah, he transgresses Me'ilah, so the horn automatically becomes Chulin. Since he is now blowing a Chulin horn, he fulfills the Mitzvah. In contrast, since there is no such thing as Me'ilah for Shelamim, the horn does not go out to Chulin when he blows it.
(c) The crucial phrase in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah is "Keivan d'Mo'al Bo Nafka l'Chulin" -- "since he transgressed Me'ilah, the horn goes out to Chulin." This is the same idea that Rashi says in Bava Metzia -- that he becomes liable for the payment of Tovas Hana'ah to Hekdesh, and therefore the Hana'ah of the axe becomes Chulin.
2) Now to Tosfos:
(a) Daniel, I think there may be a typo in your first sentence that Tovas Hana'ah exceeds the benefit of axe used for chopping, because it should be the other way around. However, what you write later on, about $50 and $20, and the idea behind these values, is correct.
(b) It seems that Tosfos and Rashi learn the same way concerning the question about how much of the axe went out to Chulin. Tosfos learns that only $20 went out to Chulin, using your terminology. This also seems to be what Rashi means when he says that "Yatzas Haniyasah l'Chulin" -- the Hana'ah went out to Chulin, but not the entire axe.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom